The Five Things Workforce Teams Don’t Know
(and Why It Matters)

By JASON MATTHEWS

I. Opening Observation: The Appearance of Alignment

Most workforce teams believe their internal systems are working. That belief often goes unchallenged – until someone asks the right questions.

On the surface, operations often look solid. Teams are staffed by capable professionals who care deeply about the people they serve. Case managers, business service representatives, supervisors, and partners are busy, committed, and generally well-intentioned. Day to day, the work gets done, clients move through the system, and relationships feel cooperative. But activity, good intentions, and cooperation do not automatically equal a system that works well.

Gaps in results emerge when belief and execution are not the same thing. A system can feel functional while still relying on assumptions. When roles, expectations, and processes live in people’s heads rather than on paper, alignment becomes fragile. The process holds only as long as personalities, habits, and informal workarounds remain intact.

This is where many workforce systems quietly struggle—not because staff aren’t trying hard enough, but because the structure beneath the work has not been fully examined. Until someone slows the conversation down and starts asking precise questions, it’s easy to mistake effort for alignment and activity for effectiveness.

II. What Teams Say vs. What the System Shows

When I’m teaching or consulting with a workforce team, there’s a small set of questions I almost always ask early on.

Many agencies do have real strengths: managing budgets well, strong employer relationships, or thoughtfully defined job readiness standards. From the outside, the operation looks functional.

On paper, this all makes sense. These teams interact regularly, share a mission, and are under constant pressure to perform. But those initial answers are rarely the end of the conversation. They’re the starting point. What they reflect is confidence in intent—not clarity in structure. Teams are answering based on how things feel, not on how the work actually moves through the system. [1]

As the questions become more specific, the room often gets quieter. Answers begin to vary. People glance at one another. It becomes clear that while parts of the system may be working well, other parts are operating on assumptions. Case managers may be surprised to learn how business services staff define readiness. Business services staff may be surprised to learn how many employer relationships exist outside their visibility.[4]

This isn’t a people-problem. It’s a design problem. [1]

When expectations aren’t written down, teams fill in the gaps themselves. Over time, those individual interpretations become habits, and those habits become “the way we’ve always done it.” The challenge is that no two people fill in the gaps the same way. [1][3]

What emerges in these moments isn’t dysfunction—it’s partial alignment. Agencies may be firing on some cylinders but not others. And without a shared structure to connect those strengths, even well-performing teams struggle to move in the same direction consistently. [1][2]

III. The Five Recurring Gaps That Surface

When teams shift from talking about relationships to examining systems, the same repetitive gaps tend to appear. These aren’t isolated problems or signs of failure — they’re patterns. They show up in workforce offices of every size, funding structure, and performance level, and can create a causal chain where each gap logically precipitates the next. [5][6]

1. Not knowing the real outcome of the work: Programs often focus heavily on placement, even though performance is measured by retention. When staff don’t understand how outcomes are tracked — or how their daily work contributes to long-term success — retention becomes an afterthought instead of the organizing principle. [5]

2. Not knowing their own role and scope: Staff often lack a shared understanding of what they’re responsible for day to day, week to week, or month to month. Roles blur, expectations go unstated, and success becomes subjective. Over time this leads to missed goals, frustration, burnout, and turnover — not because people aren’t capable, but because boundaries aren’t clear. [6]

3. Not knowing their money: Budgets and fiscal policies exist but are often invisible to the people doing the work. Without a clear understanding of funding flow, allowable costs, and the connection between spending and outcomes, programs risk inefficient use of funds—both leaving money on the table and spending it in ways that fail to advance results. Financial uncertainty quietly erodes confidence and planning. [7]

4. Not knowing their community or where they fit: Many teams lack a clear picture of their partner ecosystem. Services are duplicated, referrals stay informal, and outcomes remain siloed. Without intentional coordination and shared visibility, agencies miss opportunities to strengthen results through collaboration. [8]

5. Not knowing each other: The most common fault line is between case management and business services. Each side operates with different assumptions about readiness and responsibility. Case managers believe clients are prepared while business services staff may feel candidates aren’t employer-ready. Without a documented definition of “job ready” and a formal handoff, both perspectives coexist and conflict. [9]

These gaps rarely announce themselves. They sit beneath the surface, masked by effort and good intentions. But once they’re visible, they explain why teams can feel stretched, disconnected, or stalled despite working hard. [5][6]

IV. Why This Matters More Than Teams Realize

Individually, each of these gaps can seem manageable. Teams work around them, and staff compensate with extra effort, individual processes, informal communication, and personal commitment. In the short term, the system appears to hold. [12]

This is where conflict often enters the picture. Not because people are difficult or disengaged, but because expectations were never fully made explicit. A mentor once framed it simply for me; “The source of all conflict is unmet expectations – Either expectations were never clearly set, or they weren’t consistently met.” [10][11]

In workforce systems that dynamic shows up everywhere.  This challenge is compounded by the fact that these issues seldom result in an immediate crisis. Programs may still place clients. Reports may still be submitted. Goals may even be met. But the system becomes increasingly dependent on individual heroics rather than intentional design.

This dependency is inherently fragile. It breaks under staff turnover or leadership transitions. What once appeared functional becomes difficult to sustain — not due to lack of effort, but because the system requires individuals to compensate for structures that were never clearly defined. [12]

V. Next Steps: What Comes Next—and How NVTI Fits In